Here in South Asia
At a conference on the shores of the Bay of Bengal I happened to have a long talk with a former general who while on active service ran an army engaged in conflict with a major Muslim nation. His comment about the "surge" was this: "You never reinforce a losing situation."
But reinforcing the American military commitment to the Middle East is the maxim of the Administration. It is the Vice President's essential thesis: the American military must be firmly installed in the Middle East until the end of oil, and until anti-American Islamic fervor fades away, no matter how long that may take. He sees American dependence on Middle Eastern oil lasting at least 60 to 80 years, notwithstanding the impact on the environment, not to mention the current account deficit. He sees armed opposition to Islamic fundamentalism as lasting at least as long as the Cold War, and of course he thinks of the conflict as the successor to the Soviet threat against capitalism and democracy. The Vice President has explained all this many times, in various ways, and in his heyday he persuaded virtually all of the mainstream media to agree with him.
Even now the Vice President plays the essential role in running the White House foreign policy strategy and, especially in the wake of Secretary Rumsfeld's departure, military strategy as well. From his perspective, withdrawal of the American military from Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East is wishful thinking at best, dangerous to America's economic future at worst, and, additionally, catastrophic for Israel. On this last point, Senator Lieberman is in strident agreement.
From the Vice President's point of view, the dire assessment of the security analysts about Iraq only underscores the importance of reinforcing the American commitment. He thinks that tactics may need to be changed, but the prospect of greater violence spreading from Iraq across the region only underscores the importance of the strategic goal: locking in American access to the region's resources and precluding the formation of significant military power under the control of any Islamic theocratic regime.
The Democratic Presidential candidates are not likely to be able to avoid direct debate over the Vice President's thesis for the whole long period until the election. John McCain and Mitt Romney agree with the Vice President and will articulate his views forcefully.
The Administration's actions with respect to Iran are part of this larger narrative. It isn't that the Administration actually wants war with Iran, but on the other hand it does want to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. What Democrat will disagree with that? And if that goal is stipulated, what then will Democrats argue in the general election about policy with respect to Iran? Just saying we should talk to Iran is not likely to suffice.
SeeDee
As the world's greatest consumer, the U.S. (buyer) of the largest producers, the Arab Middle-Eastern Nations (sellers), the U.S. is ultimately the one who calls the shots in the Middle East, regardless of the political and theological enemities, alliances, power balances, etc.
This may change with the advent of China and other Asian consumers surpassing the U.S. as consumers...but for the next decade or so, the U.S. should:
(1) Spend the BILLIONS of dollars currently being wasted in Iraq right here on developing alternative, renewable fuels and on converting American industry and domestic uses along those lines.
(2) Tell the 'multi-national oil companies they are on their own in the 'structured' (i.e. monopolized) market-place they have built for their industry. Let them devote their efforts to courting those newly developing Asian economies as customers. And DON'T involve the U.S. in the warfare and competition that arises from their newly directed efforts.
(3) Serve notice to Israel AND their traditional Arab enemies that any REAL threat to 'obliterate' or coerce Israel will earn an immediate nuclear response from America's arsenal.
(4) Serve notice on Israel that the guarantee is null and void if they embark on any new expansionist policies versus their neighbors, or if they put stumbling-blocks in according the Palestinians a viable state and homeland.
(5) Require Israel and Iran and other currently non-regulated and/or non-declared nuclear powers to dismantle ANY weapons and weapons grade productions.
Return all troops to the U.S. territories and work directly with N. AND S. Korea to solve the nuke problem there...
(6) Devote greatly increased resources to solving the ailments that beset ALL STRATA of our own society.
Hillary...John...are you listening? Naturally, all thes aims should be attained without the actual use of force...
February 2, 2007 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
And, naturally, you can see that all of my previous post was offered in a really, REALLY serious vein.
February 2, 2007 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It isn't that the Administration actually wants war with Iran, but on the other hand it does want to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. What Democrat will disagree with that?"
Wes Clark has had the courage to say that, given the reality of where we are now due to the Bush years, Iran with a bomb may be something we have to live with and not a great danger. He says it would be crazy to attack Iran to try and stop it from going nuclear, and who can doubt that after our Iraq experience. Clark is the true peace candidate among the possibilities for 2008, a true liberal, and unafraid to face reality (or to face AIPAC) and has the military credentials and diplomatic savvy to lay any Republican candidate flat in a debate over this.
He's been opposed to the Iraq war and warning about war with Iran for years and knows we are facing a crisis now due to Bush Administration provocations. I'm not so sure Bush & Cheney don't want war with Iran. They are sure acting like they do. We are now seeing a re-run of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. All the signs are there.
February 2, 2007 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here we see the real consequences of American aversion to taxes. The Europeans have taxed oil products heavily since the 1970s. This has helped them wean themselves away from oil somewhat.
We, market lovers that we are, and tax haters that we are, have kept taxes on oil (gas) low. Consequently, other energy options (including, but not only, conservation) have not materialized.
We pay with lives and prestige now. But soon we will pay with the collapse of our economy, unless we can move away from carbon based energy in one, or at most two, decades.
February 2, 2007 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee,
Not a bad start. Item's 1, 2, 4 & 6 are reasonable.
Item 3 is an utter impossibility. First it gives Israel control of OUR use of nukes. With this guarantee they can be as unreasonable as they want to be and they don't have to worry because their big brother will bail them out when their activities bring truly negative results down on them. Second, When things get so bad that there is no choice but to use nukes, the U.S. and everyone else has already done everything wrong up to that point. Nukes are a crutch that the US has lived with for too long, and should never commit to use.
Take item 3 off the table, and Israel's nukes are their last chance. They won't give them up. But they won't use them unless it appears that Israel is about to be destroyed because the long range effect of using their nukes will ultimately be little more than allowing more refugees to leave before Israel is destroyed. They can't afford to use them, and they can't give them up.
That said, they've done pretty well with their nukes so far, and if they have to use them, it's on their heads, not ours. I trust the Israelis to recognize the utter loss that they will face if they ever use them a lot more than I trust our American leaders. Among other things, I'd expect out leaders to be willing to fight a war in Israel to the last Israeli soldier (and their families) before acting to use nukes that history would blame them for.
Since our leaders would be facing a theoretical threat to someone else, Item 5 is also a non-starter. The responsibility has to be on the people who face directly the greatest threat. That's not the U.S., even assuming that we regain a government of sane and reasonable individuals soon. [I grow less certain of this hope, also.]
We would never be able to convince the Israelis to give up their last ditch ace-in-the-hole. With the possible exception of the Palestinians, there is no other nation in the world under such constant existential threat. The Israelis could live without the support of the U.S. more easily than without their own pacifiers nukes.
Similarly, I know and trust my local cops, but I'd give them up before I gave up my own guns, dogs and security system. I live in a bad neighborhood, but not nearly as bad as the Israelis do.
February 2, 2007 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't often agree with Tom Friedman, but I think he nailed the way we should approach Iran in Friday's column:
In 2005, Bloomberg.com reported, Iran’s government earned $44.6 billion from oil and spent $25 billion on subsidies — for housing, jobs, food and 34-cents-a-gallon gasoline — to buy off interest groups. Iran’s current populist president has further increased the goods and services being subsidized.
So if oil prices fall sharply again, Iran’s regime will have to take away many benefits from many Iranians, as the Soviets had to do. For a regime already unpopular with many of its people, that could cause all kinds of problems and give rise to an Ayatollah Gorbachev. We know how that ends. “Just look at the history of the Soviet Union,” Professor Mau said.
In short, the best tool we have for curbing Iran’s influence is not containment or engagement, but getting the price of oil down in the long term with conservation and an alternative-energy strategy. Let’s exploit Iran’s oil addiction by ending ours.
Cheney's prescription is having the exact opposite effect of the one it purports to seek: it is causing the price of oil to rise, thereby strengthening the hands of the forces in Iran that we want to weaken.
If McCain or Romney want to defend this approach (which is advocated by a man who at times seems delusional), especially in view of the way it has failed in Iraq, spawning rather than diminishing terrorism, while simultaneously being against any attempt to engage in a comprehensive effort at regional diplomacy, I say bring it on.
Of course, Bush/Cheney can moot this particular debate by recklessly attacking Iran in the near term. If that happens, the Democrats in Congress better use the power that the Constitution grants them to hold them accountable.
February 3, 2007 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Wes Clark is right about Iran (possibly for the wrong reasons -- AIPAC may be influential, but I think their overall foreign policy input is overrated, much like that of defense contractors; correlations don't prove causalities). The administration obviously feels that the Iranian situation is incorrigible through diplomacy. Or maybe the neocons still hanging around are disgusted with the thought of engaging Iran. But isn't it just as disgusting, thinking back to a recent post by Josh on the main site, that we would apparently be siding with SCIRI in Iraq, who the Iranians prefer over Maliki's Dawa party? I mean, SCIRI has been involved in several hate crimes in Iraq that targetted homosexuals. So, obviously, it's not ideological. So what gives? Does the administration actually buy this Hitler-at-Munich logic? That seems to be the best explanation, especially considering, as this article points out, that Cheney sees the war on terror as ideological struggle akin to the Cold War, lumping different adversaries together just like we foolishly did with China, the Soviet Union, and the North Vietnamese.
Of course, having been Ford's Chief of Staff, he is well aware of things like the Helsinki Accords and other times America has had to engage an ideological adversary. What makes this administration's stubborness all the more foolish is that Islamic theocracy is in no way the ideological alternative Marxism was to liberalism. It lacks the universal appeal of the two Cold War ideologies.
February 3, 2007 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what is irrational about Iran seeking nukes? Given the lawless behavior of BushCo over the last 6 years ask yourself the following: If you were leader of a country in the crosshairs of the US foreign policy/military establishment, how could you opt not to develop any and all defenses against this hegemon?
February 3, 2007 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your attempt to make sense of Dick Cheney's foreign policy world view falls flat when it reaches one essential point: ISRAEL.
If everything else you said about the Cheney world view is correct, then why would support Israel so militantly? If our goal is to keep the Middle East mollified enough for us to pump their oil wells until they go dry, wouldn't it make more sense to take a distancing position with regards to Israel, and to play "moderate" Arab states against less-moderate ones? We risk our relationships with these moderate Arab states through our close linkage with Israel.
I'm not taking or advocating any position about Israel here. Just pointing out the inconsistency in your explanation.
February 3, 2007 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently the Iranians started pursuing nuclear weapons since 1992. There is no doubt that Bush's "axix of evil" speech put a premium on having nuclear weapons but caused no one to start such a program. It might very well be that given Saddems fear of the Shiia to the south and Iran that Iran's motivation was Saddem Hussein.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 3, 2007 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given that there is no evidence out there that Iran is building nuclear weapons, or a nuclear weapons program, what evidence do you have that Iran is intending to build nuclear weapons? I will accept the inferral of intent from Iran's documented actions.
February 3, 2007 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
One possibility is that support of Israel gains the administration the support of a significant part of the American public that might not in any other case be willing to buy into the harsh brand of geo-politics Cheney likes to practice. Americans really like feeling idealistic, especially in situations where we aren't acting according to our ideals, so by supporting Israel we can put on our blinders and feel good about ourselves.
Still, I really doubt Cheney and the other neo-imperialists actually care about Israel (or anything else besides themselves). If they ever decided it was to their advantage, they would drop Israel in a heartbeat regardless of whatever the neocons and AIPAC said.
February 3, 2007 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney's view is exactly as Reed stated it. Support for Israel is one of many figleaves for the underlying policy. This is far from Cheney's view alone; it is just that he is one who is willing to come close to stating it out loud.
As to Iran in 2008 debates, I think we should assume that the war with Iran will already have happened by then or will be on-going. I just cannot see Cheney passing up the opportunity to make sure that it happens given that the 2008 outcome is uncertain.
They may well try to bargain with Iran rather than change the regime -- install pro-Iranian elements in Iraq, accept the regime, and give back the oil in exchange for no nukes, an oil deal with US firms, and acceptance of a large permanent US military presence in Iraq.
Net result: a line-up at al Qaeda HQ that stretches around the block. Stuff happens, as Rummy would say.
global citizen
February 3, 2007 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Friedman is good at coming up with hopeless combinations of outcomes. It will be impossible to advance alternatives to oil unless the price stays high, earning many euros for Iran.
On top of that, if his impossible dream of catatstrophically low oil revenue came true and Iran collapsed, that should be the last thing we would want. We would have an Axis of Instability from Iraq through Afghanistan, with Pakistan not so solid, either.
February 3, 2007 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can it be that the world has allowed its geopolitical course to be set by a lineman from Wyoming, an alcoholic who drank himself out of Yale in his sophomore year, who garnered 5 draft deferments and 2 DUIs, whose failed strategies helped destroy the Ford presidency, who as CEO burdened his company with massive asbestos liability, who continues to profit from a disastrous war he devised and promoted and from the sea of corruption his policies created, whose verbal pomposity scarcely conceals his shallow intellect, who has left nothing but devastation in his wake his entire life?
If our-emperor-in-the-shadows gets the war on Iran he so fervently desires, the price of oil will soar and who will benefit in the short term and the long term, compared to putting that borrowed wealth into conservation and alternative energy technology and research? Already millions of dollars that we pay for oil are being sent by wealthy Middle Easterners to the insurgents who are killing and maiming our troops and Iraqi civilians. Does our Congress have so little regard for our troops and civilians across the Middle East that they will allow Dick Cheney to accelerate this deadly cycle when there are reasonable and responsible alternatives?
February 3, 2007 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Implied in Reed's post is the fact that Bush has become irrelevant. History may well show that he always was. Perhaps America's first figurehead president. Has there been another? Will this time become known as the Cheney Years?
February 3, 2007 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoyed this one, Mr. Hundt, and think it one of your best. In the past week or so we've had a couple of really thoughtful, extensive, and well argued pieces on TPM Café, and generally speaking they've evoked the best out of those who comment here, whether they agree or not. For one thing, those whose greatest pleasure is hunting the snark don't usually take the time to read the longer pieces. For another, longer pieces are usually argued in ways which makes snark and snipe more difficult. Compare the comments here with the comments on Noble Nobel, for example.
So keep it up, and thanks. :-)
aMike
February 3, 2007 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know that Edwards is on board for (1), and he has made some noises that sound like he's on board for (2) ...
... and it seems that there is a wave of blogysteria after his speech to the Herzliya Conference that he may be on board (3) as well, though much of it is a kneejerk reaction along the lines of "he said all cards are on the table, when Bush says that, he wants to bomb and invade, therefore Edwards means he wants to bomb and invade". But I doubt you will hear any candidate in the first tier say anything like (3)-(5) out loud.
February 3, 2007 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the other hand, demands for subsidies in that kind of nationalist-populist regime tend to escalate, so taking action that keeps the baseline in the moderate price range ... $50-$80/barrel ... would subject the Iranians to periodic fiscal crises as the price of oil fluctuates around the baseline.
Pursuing Cheney's approach will see the price go into the high range, topping the $100/barrel price (in real purchasing power) at the peak of the second OPEC oil price shock.
February 3, 2007 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is another dimension here in guessing the Bush-Cheney proclivity to attack Iran. It stems from the intellectual launching point of the whole PNAC attitude- that with the fall of the soviet union, leaving intact our tremendous arsenal, America found itself the unrivalled military superpower and in a position- which should be rapidly exploited- to enforce it's will on the world by military threats and interventions.
And in putting Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld together there emerged a common psychological attrraction to bully-boy behavior, macho diktat, and aversion to diplomacy out of a secret fear of weakness (typical of warlike chickenhawks).
So when the Taliban offered to turn over BinLaden, they closed that channel fast. Likewise when Saddam offered to open Iraq to all the inspectors in the world if desired. In both cases, the real point was not to achieve some particular goal, but rather to demonstrate their willingness to use US power, and demonstrate it's effectiveness in re-ordering the realities on the ground. To confirm, in other words, an article of faith for the PNAC boys.
Now, after Iraq, the 'effectiveness' of US power in this way is looking very dubious, so there is hesitation and some confusion. And the chemistry of Bush-Cheney minus Rumsfeld may not drift as fast toward macho warmongering.
But Cheney and his puppet Bush still prefer threats and violence, where they feel powerful, to discussion and cooperation, where they feel weak; and they still want to demonstrate (perhaps now more than ever) the efficacy of unilateral force; therefore they have rebuffed every attempt from the other side to defuse the looming conflict.
February 3, 2007 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
That dimension is the Achilles heel of the brain dead neocon utopians. It's our failure in Iraq writ large. They never thought anybody would fight back! They didn't think we'd have resistence in Iraq and, far worse for us in the future, they cluelessly assumed that the rest of the world had no other alternatives but to submit to our superior power. How could anyone who ever read a history book assume that the US could make power grab in the heart of the world's strategic resources and not face blowback from any number of nations in any number of ways?
February 3, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
Neocons (of whatever variety) need to learn the following listed un-changeable, irrefutable truths:
War is NOT wonderful;
War is NOT a solution to woe, it is a cause of woe;
War does NOT destroy wickedness...in the final analysis, it breeds more wickedness;
War does NOT end injustices and in-equalities...it nurtures the false notion that 'MIGHT MAKES RIGHT';
War NEVER truly solves disputes among peoples and nations...it prolongs the life of hatreds;
And WAR in the name of, or defense of, Gods, false or 'real', is folly in the extreme...since it inevitably causes the destruction of many who 'serve' those 'Gods'.
PEACE does make more sense, huh?
Dead-eye Dick Cheney should learn to give PEACE a chance, especially RE Iran.
February 3, 2007 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something in the Mearsheimer & Walt paper has always haunted me:
Could this really be true? That the US and Israeli neocons in the 'planning stages' of the war, thought that regime change could really happen and there could be Iraqi oil connecting to Israel and to the sea?
Then, I got to thinking about Israel's economy. How does Israel support itself? What is its long-term projections.
So, being really really simplistic would it be crazy to assume that Cheney needed Israel as his military base and oil depot, and the Israeli neocons wanted the nod that they would get the land they wanted, and acquire their future economic security in the region?
I am wrong, way off the planet...?
February 3, 2007 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
FAILURE...Iran's got us by the short and curlies and the American people do not have the stomach or the troops or the money for a wider war.
The Democrats better change the larger narrative! That's what makes Hillary's recent fulminations so egregious and sodangerous. Try the F word..you'll like it or you'll eat it because if you think things are bad now, just wait 6 months.
February 3, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
We actually would not be in Iraq if not for the oil. To demonstrate now unbalanced our system is let us admit that presently our entire economy is based on oil and oil based products without which we could not maintain our existence as we know it. Now what if it were water that we needed to maintain our economy (there's only so much clean water in the world that we can actually ingest). Now say that the water company posted a profit for 2006 of $39.5 billion we would think this ludicrous . Why is Exxon/Mobile allowed to make such profits off of a substance necessary to our economy's very existence, that our society needs to sustain life (in this modern age). There should be a cap on just how much a company can make off the needs of society on which the very existence of life itself depends. $39.5 billion in one year alone, my god these corporations need to be regulated, restrained, or dismantled before we all become slaves. Government is our only defense and offense that we have to protect us from these huge corps. and we get Bush and Cheney. Cheney title may say VP but he's never stopped working for Haliburton or the Exxon/Mobile supported AEI. He is totally alien to the middle class and especially the poor. He only believes in government 'for' the people.
February 3, 2007 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
February 3, 2007 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to sound flip but…
War, good God ya’ll, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
Or how about that Aerosmith classic, Cheney’s Got a Gun:
I saw January’s Texas Monthly in a supermarket the other day. It is themed "Bum Steers" and has a picture of Deadeye Dick pointing a smoking shotgun on the cover with a caption something like, ‘If you don’t buy this magazine Dick Cheney will shoot you in the face.’ Here’s a link.
http://www.texasmonthly.com/mag/issues/2007-01-01/index.phpFebruary 3, 2007 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
They simply thought 9/11 would provide more cover and they are gamblers who took a big gamble.I seriously doubt whether they are willing to double down but ive been wrong before.I think global citizen is right about the possibility of some secret dealings with Iran, a promise to hold off for a while as we arm a Shiia army to the teeth,a similar deal reached with the Saudis to facilitate a Sunni exodus and then mission accomplished! The deal will not include permanent bases and will require movement on Israeli settlement building.
February 3, 2007 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look folks. The $100 million plus millionaires are international citizens. They have no more allegiance to the US than is advantageous in our tax system. Cheney, Bush, etc., couldn't give a flying f**k about the US or us ordinary citizens.
That is principle number 1. Anyone who thinks otherwise cannot even fathom what is going on.
The war in Iraq is all about money and power. No US money and power, it is about corporate money and power. The possible war in Iran is the same thing. The only reason that Iran is in danger is that the power brokers include enough people who have taken Israel under their wing as what one blogger has called a zoo for Jewish people.
Iran is not a threat to the US, anyone with the brains god gave a worm knows that. Iran is not a threat to Israel, but the paranoids in Israel don't know that.
Political instability in the Middle East has created hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth for the very people who supposedly are protecting us. The war itself has cost $1 trillion with a lot of that going to wealthy contractors. The impact on the cost of oil has at least matched that cost.
Thinking that international wealthy citizens care the least about the US for any reason other than its instrumental value for their increasing hegemony is our first mistake. Let's at least agree to stop acting silly.
February 3, 2007 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
What is WRONG with this picture?
What is WRONG with this picture?
I am livid over Levin...and just OVER Sillary Clinton but LOVING Hagel and an ex-Gingrich congressman from the redneck Fl panhandle
Not to mention PAT BUCHANAN!
Scarbor0ugh livid over dirty attacks by pro-surge G0Pers
"You know Pat Buchanan I consider myself to be extraordinarily conservative..how can you have republicans...accusing other republicans of betraying America ...It looks like the GOP is being thrown into a civil war...Just watching Tony Snoew slamming me and other republicans.I am more conservative than George Bush has ever been"
"The bottom line, joe, is the Senate is not leading public opinion it is following public opinion. The country registered its opinion in November and ..."
February 4, 2007 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, he addressed that issue in another column. He proposes setting a floor on the price of oil at $45 a barrel precisely to encourage the development of alternative fuels:
And you need to tell Americans that you're creating a $45-a-barrel floor price for imported oil, so investors can safely finance alternatives without worrying that they'll be undercut by OPEC.
He isn't advocating a collapse, he's proposing a way to empower the reformists.
February 4, 2007 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
IraN, IraQ -
Nary 1 Letter Difference in the Same Old BushS
February 4, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
TAX, you know that awful thing... used to motivate people to change behavior... We should be taxing the living hell out of carbon based fuel... and using it to subsidize non-carbon fuel. Gas should be $5 a gallon I know that idea is unpopular, but that is where it should be. Carbon generated electricity should be much equivalentl. We don't have to jump there in one year, but we should phase in over 3-5 years.
February 4, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink